Okay guys, people want to discuss this.
There are two sides to creating this policy-- First: Identifying a need. Second: What goes into it.
For the first one: I'm telling you now that there is a need. Seeing people question whether something needs an article gets tedious. It also requires people who see the talk page (not many people check talk pages) to know what to do in the scenario. --So I'm fast-tracking onto the important bit: Actually discussing the policy.
For the second one: Have no fear, you're resident "wiki-expert and knows almost everything about policy except maybe music and personnel articles" is here. I wrote what some may call a draft which can now be found: here.
This policy is built based on past discussions and what the wiki does in practise. Mainly what the wiki does in practise, but some of what the wiki does in practise has featured in past discussions.
Look how many points there are, right? It would have taken us ages to review each point individually.
But of course, very few of these points have gone through Wiki-official processes to be listed the way they are. This is because the wiki does not have an article creation policy to officially note them down in.
So how should we discuss this?
Okay, I don't know how everyone else wants this to work but here's how I'm going to work it and if the end product is still not wanted in project space then your loss.
I will make a list of anything dubious or not 100%. Wikians, you can also add to this list. In a week's time I will take the first point from the list and open up a discussion. When a conclusion has been made I will amend the draft. If after a week no decision has been made I will look for the consensus and amend the draft-- it wouldn't work any other way. After a point is confirmed I will move on to the next on the list. Through this we will discuss everything that anyone has a problem with. 79.69.201.144 23:48, July 28, 2012 (UTC)
- HOORAY! The Wiki has needed something like this for so long, it is excellent to see it being made. There's a lot of specific information and it is incredibly handy for making articles; I've often had to hope an article is okay or ask around and get little help when making some articles; having a standardized list depicting different reasons for articles of different types and list articles to be made is great. I completely support a page like this being made. And was this really that hard, JBed? Jimcloud 00:02, July 29, 2012 (UTC)
- No, not hard. I always planned on making a forum like this. After deciding to post it straight to project space I was waiting for response. And then I was going to make one after the responses on the talkpage of the project page but people were more intent on criticising me rather than the policy. The two problems that were bought up-- one was fixed and was never argued further.
- Essentially there was no point in me making this thread when the wiki just decided to let the project page lie in there. I was just waiting for something to pick a problem with it (because I knew there were).
- But no one ever did. And now rather than pick the problems people are still avoiding the subject entirely and just moving it out of project space. And in a half-assed way since it's still linked to in Help:Contents.
- Psst... Jimcloud, I wanted to create this thread more than anyone else wants to see it. And I'd argue that not many people want to see it. 79.69.201.144 00:14, July 29, 2012 (UTC)
List
- World articles containing list of location over List of Locations article, ALSO every world (based on either situation (Terra (Final Fantasy IX)) or being a different World Map (Bottom of the Sea)) has its own article. This is not done in practise but it is policy. Discussion point 1 (Approved).
- Sub-menus of the Items/Inventory menu option all go on one page. This is the theory, yet for some reason there is justification for Loot (Final Fantasy XII) and similar articles, but not Key Item articles. Discussion point 2 (Amended).
- List of Abilities: I'm not sure why I flagged this, AFAIK it's always done in practice. I think I flagged it because of how List of Abilities pages are formatted, which is really a job for the MoS, not for a creation policy. Discussion point 3 (Approved).
- Every recognizable figure that has appeared in 2 ability animations gets a creature/being article (such as Grim Reaper). --This isn't technically official because it's not in practise. However I once discussed it and no one argued against it and I would have gone through with creating an article but I never did. Discussion point 4 (Undecided).
- 75% appearances in a compilation for an enemy-- there was admin go ahead for Guard Hound due to appearing in 4/4 released of VII. Since then Epiolnis was created (although since then VI has been added-- which makes it four, which fails the regular recurring enemy check (although its appearance in 75% games of a series overrules that if we decided to keep that).) Discussion point 5 (Amended).
- 6 appearances for a recurring enemy. Or is it 5? There is always a drive for being important. I am fairly sure 6 is followed. But not confirmed. Discussion point 6 (Amended).
- 8 appearances as an enemy ability. Recurring enemy abilities usually get articles for being Blue Magic or appearing under some other criteria. However Scorch only has 4. Eight was once said to avoid boring physical attack pages from being created. This is now being refuted. Discussion point 7 (Amended).
- Used by 2 different summons, both requiring 3 different uses. --This is not true. Y'see, we made a number of articles like Hellfire (Ability) and Diamond Dust but someone said that abilities used almost exclusively by one summon should not get an article. It was basically a "stop making these articles" comment. This means there is nothing official in the policy, and the policy written here is therefore not officially followed. Discussion point 8 (Amended)
- "A recurring ability associated with a specific character or boss in 3 appearances (such as Army of One, Big Bang (Ability))." But that includes "Scorch" and any enemy that appears in FFI, TAY, and an original game that uses an ability in all three, like Scorch. Discussion point 9 (Approved).
- The single-appearance character policy. I'm sure most people agree that everything written there is acceptable, however there are exceptions to those rules. Discussion point 10 (Approved).
- Wait, if <20 Allusions, they go on the main game page? Final Fantasy III#Allusions doesn't exist, neither does Final Fantasy III allusions. Is it just because nobody's written the Allusions section/page yet? Discussion point 1 (Approved)
- For enemies, why does FFT and FFTA2:GotR have exceptions but FFTA doesn't? Discussion point 12 (Approved)
- Special enemies that are palette-swaps or fall into the same family as another enemy can get their own page (like Ultima Weapon and Omega Weapon)? Discussion point 13 (Approved)
Suggestions
Okay, so on this list, the first thing I want to comment on is that with summons, there's no need to make pages for any attack. At all. Those attacks are tied to the summon spell, or in cases like FFX and FF13, they are hallmark attacks of that single "character." Just because another summon might use Hellfire does not create a need to create an article for that attack. The truth is unless an ability is used by more than one entity within the context of the same game, it's inextricably tied to whatever used it, whether it's Ifrit or Anti-Shiva. Once the party gains access to the Hellfire spell, we'll talk.
Second, I would argue that we do a lot of page-making for things only ever used once, and I don't see that as a problem. FF13 has Ruin and as demonstrated, it has its own page. Pages need to be created based on the need for accessible information. Because Ruin is a new spell, it deserves a page, even if said page is just a blurb. The same goes with any new summon or traditionally universal object. Now, for individual character skills, such as Limit Breaks, those either need to go on the character's page or in an archive with those of the rest of the cast, depending on what it is and whether there's enough to justify pooling them all into an article. But in most cases, every summon and spell should have a page. Bluestarultor BSA 00:40, July 29, 2012 (UTC)
- What about articles like Omnislash and Army of One? Are they comparable to summon attack articles?Keltainentoukokuu (talk) 01:41, July 29, 2012 (UTC)
- Those pages are useful for people who are curious for information about a specific ability; if it's used by more than one creature, then obviously you can't find all of the information you want for it on one parent page unless it's for the ability, and thus, you can't effectively demonstrate the differences between the ability on the other parent page, can you? Since that's the case, I would say that we should have these articles when the information can't be demonstrated together on one page otherwise. Jimcloud 02:28, July 29, 2012 (UTC)
- One user ability appearance = An article. Even if only one job/one character uses the ability it still merits the article. I don't know why summons should be treated that differently. Shiva is always (almost?) the only one that uses Diamond Dust, but Shiva is a creature/summon article. Summon articles are essentially character articles. And you don't see us opting not to create ability articles if only one character/job uses the ability.
- Just my thoughts on the matter. 79.69.192.133 19:08, July 29, 2012 (UTC)
- Would it be better to create individual h2s for each point on the list and then create comment subsections for each one? I feel that lumping all suggestions/bullet points in one list would make constructive comments bulky. 8bit 20:23, July 29, 2012 (UTC) EDIT: For the enemy ability attack page, I'd say allow four appearances. If the only difference is the "boringness" of an attack name, I don't think that's an important enough factor to have a separate limit for page creation. 8bit 20:32, July 29, 2012 (UTC)
- If you read the opening I say that I'm going to actually discuss each point individually. If we try to discuss all the points at the same time things will never happen.
- Currently we're in the "add stuff to that list" phase. Any other discussion that occurs now doesn't really matter. 79.69.192.133 20:42, July 29, 2012 (UTC)
- Summons are a bit less than characters though. We don't have a page on Asura's Boon or whatever the most recent version calls it, I never keep track of these things because Asura only uses it in 2 games. In FFIV and TAY she casts Asura's Boon, but in Dissidia and D012 she casts Queen's Aegis, which does something completely different. I'm all for the "3 uses" (or perhaps 4?) rule, but not the "2 different users" rule, as Hellfire, if wasn't used by a summon, would have its own page without question; however, all the information we could ever have on Asura's Boon is right there in Asura (Summon). at least I think that's how it is... right?C A T U S E 02:58, July 30, 2012 (UTC)
- Would it be better to create individual h2s for each point on the list and then create comment subsections for each one? I feel that lumping all suggestions/bullet points in one list would make constructive comments bulky. 8bit 20:23, July 29, 2012 (UTC) EDIT: For the enemy ability attack page, I'd say allow four appearances. If the only difference is the "boringness" of an attack name, I don't think that's an important enough factor to have a separate limit for page creation. 8bit 20:32, July 29, 2012 (UTC)
I suggest that somebody include a section for when new policy pages can be written. You know, instead of going through all this lamentable acrimony again. --BlueHighwindツ 20:26, July 29, 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose... as debating that would be nothing but lamentable acrimony in itself. :{ C A T U S E 02:58, July 30, 2012 (UTC)
I've only just noticed that there is absolutely, positively no policy whatsoever on this page about when to make Music articles. Any reason for that, JBed? Jimcloud 21:16, July 29, 2012 (UTC)
- When I write things on wiki... I don't have control over my internet connection-- so when it is turned off I end up just writing everything I know for fact and the basic skeleton of the article. Music articles were something I forgot to include in said skeleton, and therefore when internet connection returned there was nothing to remind me that I needed to add music articles here. I'm not good on music policy so I didn't write it without internet, and then I forgot to check up on it later when I had internet.
- There is also no information on personnel. I forgot about this completely. Which is strange because one of the things that made me think about writing it now was because of discussion about making articles for VAs (but then we don't have those articles so they were never going to be mentioned in the policy). 79.69.192.133 21:20, July 29, 2012 (UTC)
Quick question, because I don't fully understand the current policy and I'm lazy: Shockstorm (yes, me!) appears as an ability used by Rikku's Machina Maw (X-2), and as an ability used by the Mimic Queen boss (XII). Does this deserve it's own page, a disambig linking to the "List of blah blah" articles, or nothing at all? (Right now it has no page/disambig). And I feel for you Jbed, my internet gets turned off around 11:30 pm. Quite annoying. --Shockstorm (talk) 21:49, July 31, 2012 (UTC)
- That depends on two things. Firstly: Is Shockstorm a top-level command? For example, in FFX "Blk Magic" is a top-level command, but "Fire" is not. Secondly: Does Shockstorm in XII have enough similarity to Shockstorm in X-2 to be considered the same thing?
- If Point 1 is true and Point 2 is true, both get a parent article at the "Shockstorm" article.
- If Point 1 is true and Point 2 is false, "Shockstorm" is a disambig that will link to an article called either "Shockstorm (Ability)" or "Shockstorm (Final Fantasy X-2)" (there is undecidedness on the best tag). The enemy ability will be linked to on the "Shockstorm" disambig.
- If Point 1 is false and Point 2 is false, "Shockstorm" is a disambig, and the X-2 ability will link to what the skillset that Shockstorm is in is called, and the XII enemy ability will link to the XII Enemy Abilities page.
- That is current policy. In this scenario Point 2 is false but I don't know about Point 1. JBed (talk) 22:07, July 31, 2012 (UTC)
- Shockstorm is a part of Machinations. That means that it does not need an article.
- What it does mean is it should be covered on an article called "Machinations". And the wiki does not have a page called "Machinations". It should. JBed (talk) 22:14, July 31, 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think any of the FFX-2 unique skillsets have articles, it's all on the job pages only.Keltainentoukokuu (talk) 00:41, August 1, 2012 (UTC)
- None of those pages actually specifically give the skillset information. From the pages you can't tell that Shockstorm is a Machinations, or that the V-one is a command. I think in the game you can by the icon (unless jobs ever have two skillsets...???).
- But the policy is that all top-level commands should have a page. If we want to make exception to the job system games like FFV and X-2 (although we don't for FFV... we make pages for the skillsets right?) that's fine. But I don't see why we should when we give character-unique skillsets like Skill a page, and even though Dyne is just an upgraded version of that and rarely ever used... even THAT gets its own page. 79.69.200.127 16:47, August 1, 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think any of the FFX-2 unique skillsets have articles, it's all on the job pages only.Keltainentoukokuu (talk) 00:41, August 1, 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Jbed. I think if you want to create the first of those X-2 pages you can do so, and once you have the formatting down I can help with the rest if you'd like. --Shockstorm (talk) 18:03, August 1, 2012 (UTC)
Hmm. Okay, I have a question, didn't notice this until now. Is there no policy on recurring abilities/equipment/etc in the same subseries only obtaining one appearance per subseries? I'd assumed that was the reason that characters got abilities if they were recurring for that character, and why enemies got parent pages if they were recurring in a subseries, not to mention it was the way I was taught to count things for the longest time. As it is now, things are getting pages for appearances in IV, IV Interlude, TAY, and something else, so I figured that some specification might perhaps come in handy. Jimcloud 13:19, September 3, 2012 (UTC)
- All games have always been equal to one appearance. The only exception is Dissidia and D012 in regards to abilities.
- With regards to equipment, Dissidia and D012 have counted as two separate appearances always. Unless I'm thinking of a time while equipment still needed three appearances, and that D012 had been released before we increased it to four (I think it was definitely four by D012 though).
- I would say that it might make more sense if we counted them as one, however it's not how it has ever been done.
- However, now you've reminded me, IV, IV Interlude, and IVTAY is just another example of the exact same game three times. They just copied all the equipment and abilities over and maybe added few new ones, right? There's probably argument for not considering Interlude one if either IV or TAY is already on there (i.e: Interlude exclusive in the IV series = 1 appearance; otherwise 0 (which is like how D012 works. Appearance in D012=1, appearance in Dissidia and D012=1).
- Things get articles for being recurrent in a sub-series because they are significant to the sub-series. While the wiki covers the entire FF-series, we are also the biggest source for each of the sub-series, and thus Chocobo Eater appearing twice with roles in FFX and X-2 makes it page-worthy (while only one would have allowed the boss page to suffice), and Guard Hound appearing in every enemy-based-VII-game means that they are clearly significant to VII even if they aren't significant to the series as a whole (which they'd need one more appearance for).
- I also now realise that IV, Interlude, and TAY will now share lots of enemies meaning a lot more sub-series enemy parents can be made.
- Such is the problem when you deal with VII (where each enemy-based-game is completely different and have had their enemies created from scratch with inspiration from past games) and IV (where it's the same game three times). 79.69.206.67 18:17, September 3, 2012 (UTC)
Discussion point 1 |
---|
Currently our coverage of list of location articles is inconsistent. A general ideal accepted by our users is what I will mention in the resolve section.
For example, we give an article for Terra and Gaia in FFIX, but in Final Fantasy V we have Planet R which actually covers all three worlds of FFV. And while Planet R is a list of locations, we have List of Final Fantasy IX Locations which decides to exist at the same time as Gaia and Terra which were not always location pages. RESOLVE:
OTHER POINTS:
CHANGES THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE MADE IF WE WERE TO ENFORCE THIS:
I think that's it. Discuss. We all agree with the above policy and think that the above changed should be made? 79.69.203.227 16:43, August 4, 2012 (UTC)
Sorted. I will put the two things that need to be done on the To-Do List. Although we might need more discussion on names for FFV. 79.69.203.57 13:25, August 7, 2012 (UTC) I've made the three FFV world pages and altered Planet R's article to link to them. What you do with them now is up to you :) Tia-Lewise 20:10, August 19, 2012 (UTC) |
Discussion point 2 |
---|
Our coverage of list of items per game is usually just a List of Items page for that game. And that is all. The List of Items page will cover the entire inventory. And the inventory in some games is just "Items", in other games it is "Items" and "Key Items", and in other games it is "Items", "Loot", "Key Items", and other stuff.
However sometimes we treat sub-parts of the inventory different. In XII we have Loot (Final Fantasy XII). And I'm sure there are other examples (Materials in Crystal Chronicles? Are they part of the main inventory?). But on all of these individual examples there is really no reason to be doing this. So in my eyes we either always keep them on the same page (merge Loot (Final Fantasy XII) with List of Final Fantasy XII Items), keep them on separate pages (and thus split Key Items from items on all occasions where they are separate) or think up some good reason why sometimes things like Loot should be separate and other times they shouldn't. I have no personal preference really. As long as we have consistency. 79.69.203.57 13:25, August 7, 2012 (UTC)
It would appear that we will be creating articles for every sub-section of an inventory. If in the future we want to make specific pages for the inventory then that can be made in a later discussion: for now the central List of Items page will do that. Further discussions about naming of articles can be made elsewhere, discussion here is primarily focused on setting up the ACP, not the NP. JBed (talk) 21:34, August 11, 2012 (UTC) |
Discussion point 3 |
---|
I think this one is a no-brainer.
A release gets an ability list if:
The idea of the first-point is for game's with Command Abilities, and the idea of the second-point is for game's with Support Abilities (like FFIX's "Abilities" in the menu--- as opposed to like FFI where the only abilities of those kind are permanent weapon/armor fixtures like Fire Strike on Flamesword). We make a "List of Abilities" page if there is selectable battle commands or if there is auto-acting commands that relate to equipment/characters, or (the more likely option) both. I personally have problems with how we handle our List of Abilities pages, but that's not the discussion I want to be having now. List of Final Fantasy X Abilities is an example of a List of Abilities page. JBed (talk) 21:34, August 11, 2012 (UTC) PS: If you want to figure out a better way to phrase the second, that's fine. Basically X, X-2, and XIII do have support abilities because the weapons grant specific abilities to the character, but FFI through FFIV don't because while weapons and armor do things, there are no specific abilities granted to the character, it's just what the weapon/armor does (not that any of those games should go without list of abilities pages-- they have commands). JBed (talk) 21:39, August 11, 2012 (UTC) I don't know if my wording is horrible and people can't understand it, people didn't read this, or people didn't feel the need to comment. Since this isn't something that really needs discussion and is generally accepted AFAIK anyway, I'll move this on if there is no protests/suggested changes by evening tomorrow (which is likely different in your timezone). JBed (talk) 01:33, August 13, 2012 (UTC)
|
Discussion point 4 |
---|
Every recognizable figure that has appeared in 2 ability animations gets a creature/being article.
This is quite clearly not in practise since the only thing specifically covered by the policy currently is "Grim Reaper", while we could have other articles: specifically "Tapir", and "Angel" (or are they sometimes a cherub? are cherub's angels?) Obviously those discussions are not conclusive. However the Tapir discussion was not specifically opposed, and I believe we have a consensus for the Grim Reaper article.
So long as consensus is fine with the Grim Reaper article, what should be the policy that lets it exist? If you want it to be based on game-appearances remember we forego a potential "Tapir" article, which means the Tapir will not have a page to mention where it appears in VI, and will instead be covered at two distinct places with nothing connecting the two appearances. And then there is also the question of what constitutes a recognisable figure. I meant something that is called into battle and is shown to be doing the effect it is doing. But if we had a "Skull" article... under what is currently written/intended it is not, and therefore has no policy covering it ever existing. Do we think Grim Reaper has justification more than Skull? Or are they just all animations and we can't be perceiving them as if some are character-like while others are not? 79.69.203.255 15:29, August 13, 2012 (UTC)
The idea is it is just an extension of concepts and themes. Except the Grim Reaper is intended to be something that acts on its own will, similar in a way to the summons of IV through IX (or arguably only FFV and FFVII since in most other cases they have some plot-relevance or additional things). It's a way to cover recurring ideas. In regards to Drake: Grim Reaper would not have an article if it only appeared in the Death spell animation. But since it also appears for Doom in some circumstances, and also a number of other abilities (some stone enemies in FFV have an ability which is essentially a death animation that features it)... We would have to include it in the Death and Doom spell articles, and mention it in any other page that includes the reaper: without any real note of it appearing elsewhere. HOWEVER, the point in the parent page is to cover all uses of the reaper throughout the game/s, and then throughout the series. In all animations where the reaper is used a link will be made to the Grim Reaper page, rather than having to specify that "The animation depicts a Grim Reaper-like figure, a recurring theme of death-related spell animations". And a user will then be able to find all the times it has appeared. Such parent pages serve to be convenient and insightful. 79.69.203.255 16:58, August 13, 2012 (UTC)
|
Discussion point 5 |
---|
The recurring enemy appears in 75% of a sub-series of enemy-oriented games which must itself contain at least 4 games (such as Guard Hound).
This point is the most dubious of points found in my draft version of the ACP. I also realise now this it doesn't actually cover them really. So this point cannot stay as is. A long time someone made a point that Carrot (Enemy) was a recurring Ivalice enemy, but it didn't have enough appearances. It had about three listed I think (and one of them wasn't an appearance). Bluerfn was involved. And it was basically argued that VII should have the same for Guard Hound (I believe the only enemy from VII to appear in the four enemy-based games (no idea bout LostEpisode tho', not that anybody knows about LostEpisode). And so the Guard Hound article was created. Later Epiolnis was created (which has since seen the addition of the VI enemy, however the recurring-Comp-VII point is what makes it article-worthy). The rules for enemy parents are either six appearances (or five, we'll discuss in a future discussion point) or storyline importance. Storyline importance generally makes them a creature/race or character article in the wiki's views, so that's fine. But with Carrot from Ivalice and Guard Hound I would say it is less about story, and more about being recurring and thus significant to its series. The wiki, as a Final Fantasy database, often looks at appearances over the course of all FF games. But within the FF-series is many sub-series. The Guard Hound enemy is a notable enemy to anyone who has played the games in the Compilation. So the idea of the rule is to allow for us to note significant enemies within sub-series so they don't have to pass a rule of being highly-recurring throughout the entire series, which Guard Hounds likely never will. The rule I originally wrote is stupid. It was a quick-decision made to have some quantified justification. The main question is what rule should we use to cover them? In the past the idea of covering highly recurring-in-a-sub-series enemies was discussed to be okay, but not everyone was involved in the discussion, and opinions change. So if you have any disagreements with the entire idea of the policy you can also discuss it. JBed (talk) 00:55, August 15, 2012 (UTC) Agreed, if the enemy is indeed the same type of entity between appearances. Also, I suggest a rewording to "three or more" over 75% - a percentage of appearances is confusing. Doreiku Kuroofangu 01:04, August 15, 2012 (UTC) 3+ will be policy if there is no further discussion by tomorrow. 79.69.199.121 18:10, August 18, 2012 (UTC) |
Discussion point 6 |
---|
I'm not really interested in making an argument here. When the policy was created it was 5 appearances, and has to have palette-swaps in 3(I think? It's a legacy point so I may not remember correctly). But people made a point of highlighting that the enemy had to have significance to FF. I.e: Ochu, easy yes. Ogre? No way man, ogres are in every jRPG. Times have changed. Quantification answers everything. And as far as I believe, all enemy parents have at least six appearances. The palette-swaps point had been ignored for a long time, and doesn't make so much sense. If we kept it we wouldn't have Mimic (Enemy). Furthermore, all the generic things like "Ogres" now usually come in the form of a recurring enemy-type. So, yeah, I say six because we use six and a higher number semi-replaces the significance thing.
Blegh. 5, 6, any other number, discuss below. 79.69.216.205 21:41, August 19, 2012 (UTC)
|
Discussion point 7 |
---|
I started the drive to create enemy ability articles, or to make them a standard on the wiki. We did have a few enemy ability articles at the time, but they weren't something common on the wiki. Well that's a lie, we had loads of them. They were called Blue Magic articles. And these articles put all the emphasis on it being a Blue Magic spell and none on it being an enemy ability. I aimed to change this. We needed some justification for those recurring-but-never Blue Magic spells. And thus Chef's Knife was made and an enemy ability nav created. Somewhere down the line Xeno took over the project. It was once written somewhere that four enemy ability appearances should be an article. It was once discussed elsewhere that a number too low will allow for an influx of boring physical attack pages. And also completely un-related attacks. Take a look at Scorch and we have three Rubicante fire-elemental attacks, and then we have IX's Vepal's attack which makes the user immune to all elements. To bring the story to a close, the wiki's policy is four. I said eight after checking a few articles. I was wrong in how I thought the wiki did it. I'd probably be happy going with four. Numbers? 79.69.202.156 23:28, August 20, 2012 (UTC)
I would settle this but there's no clear number, I can't decide between four or five. JBed (talk) 22:43, August 29, 2012 (UTC) If no one new posts their view in the next day, I'll be changing it to five. 79.69.212.160 20:53, September 1, 2012 (UTC) |
Discussion point 8 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Once upon a time Hellfire (Ability) and Diamond Dust were created. And someone made the comment that we shouldn't create articles if its always used by one summon. They basically said stop making these articles. The way we handle summons is sort of a grey area on the wiki because of the way they work in game. You call a named summon into battle, and they use an ability on the enemy. The wiki clearly often treats summons as an ability page in this regard. But with FFX, XII, and XIII, we see that summons are now summoned into battle and are basically like non-storyline playable characters with a little less customisation. At what point do we consider that recurring abilities used by summons like Rebirth Flame, Diamond Dust, Hellfire, and Judgement Bolt, are actually abilities in their own right? Even if they are used by the same entity, we have Omnislash and Army of One, and the reality of it is that these could have no problem being on the character's page. The point I made is basically a compromise. It does not cover all our summon ability articles. I should mention that when I created Hellfire (Ability) the idea was that it was a summon ability and enemy ability related to Ifrit, not just because it was a summon ability. If I had my way we would treat summon abilities and summons as separate things. Typing in something like "Ultimate End" would redirect the user to the FFVII Summon Skillset page (which does not currently exist I don't think). On this page will be the link to Knights of Round if they wished. And the KoR page also would link to the Summon skillset page (where all technical details about the attack would be found) but the KoR page would still mention that its a thirteen-hit(?) magical(?) attack. After this, five repeats of the same summon ability (or ability in any form in five games) would be page-worthy. But it's not about me. This is such a broad topic, if I can't see a consensus I will remove the point from the ACP and leave discussion on this matter until a later time on its own forum. 79.69.202.215 14:11, September 2, 2012 (UTC)
As much as I like discussion, clearly not enough people are interested. So I'm just going to write out policies suggesting how we handle summon coverage:
Three days. I will just be looking for a majority. As much as I hate to use a system like this since it doesn't let people change others mind and it can leave people not understanding how content would be handled, discussion isn't happening. 79.69.193.33 16:21, September 7, 2012 (UTC)
My thoughts:
|
Discussion point 9 |
---|
"A recurring ability associated with a specific character or boss in 3 appearances (such as Army of One, Big Bang (Ability))."
The point can allow many articles, I will give the examples below:
(I should probably note that if in any of the above theoretical games the attack was not in a skillset but an attack, that ability would be page-worthy, but it would be a page for that version of the attack only, and it would not be a parent. At best, the Trivia of the page will say its name is references in one of his attacks in another game).
79.69.209.5 20:07, September 11, 2012 (UTC) Policy stays as is if no discussion by Sunday evening. 79.69.192.106 16:48, September 14, 2012 (UTC) |
Discussion point 10 |
---|
The current topic of discussion is the character policy. The character policy was written with insight and thought, and I'm sure most of you will agree with the points made. Then why did I personally feel a need to bring it up? Because the wiki doesn't really have anything resembling an article creation policy. So rather then letting the policy slide through, if it goes through I want to see some change. Final Fantasy Wiki:Article Creation Policy#Single-appearance features is what I'm talking about.
(bear in mind I'm a VII expert, so that's what my examples will be about) Note: Each of the above can be covered in about two sentences on the LoVII Characters page.
Discuss the policy below, and why you may think that my review of changes to VII's characters is wrong. If you have no opinion other than agreement with the policy then say that, because I can't just assume that everyone agrees. That's where things go wrong and I get blamed for not getting anyone else's opinion and doing things because I say so. 79.69.203.169 20:48, September 15, 2012 (UTC)
I will clean up the VII character articles. I'm also going to redirect Myrna which I put on the list. She sounds important, but she's the wife of Barret who died on the Corel disaster. That's all there is to it. If anyone wants to review other game's minor character articles, feel free. 79.69.207.3 13:47, September 18, 2012 (UTC) |
Review week |
---|
We have reviewed policies the wiki flagged as being unsure of. But the policy is not yet complete. However, before I call on the experts in the missing fields, I am going to give a week for people to read through the current state of the ACP and see if there is anything they are unsure of or disagree with (in terms of disagreeing that the policy matches what we actually aim to do), and then adding them as bullets to the bottom of the List. Anyone can add to the list. The idea is that anything on there that anyone has problem with is checked up on so then no one can have a problem, since anything contested has been discussed. By the end of the week we'll start up discussions again for the new points in the same fashion as before. If nothing is added to the list then we can move on to the topic of further additions before the ACP draft is complete-- all wiki-consensus-approved. 79.69.207.3 13:47, September 18, 2012 (UTC) I know little about policy, but I'll weigh in anyways:
|
Discussion point 11 |
---|
SO basically, I said in the ACP that more than 20 allusions to get an article. Random number, yes. We don't need a subpage for allusions if there are only five, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't mention. In any case, if we have an allusions article, we should still have an "Allusions" header on the game page, and this will main the subpage, and comment on the types of allusion. VII's allusions to the number FFVII would be mentioned in such a section; FFV will say that in the Advance versions there are many allusions to popular culture etc. Two questions that are being asked: Is 20 good? And does FFIII not have an allusions list because we haven't written one, or because it never alludes to anything? 79.69.200.112 13:09, September 25, 2012 (UTC)
|
Discussion point 12 |
---|
This regards a point I made about exceptions. Our FFT and FFTA2 enemy coverage give a single page to an entire genus, wihle in FFTA each individual enemy gets a page. I don't know why. It's what the wiki does. So you can state reasons why FFTA should be treated differently, or that FFTA should give pages only to genus, or that FFT and FFTA2 should have a page for each enemy (I am of the opinion that each genus should have a page regardless, like FFX). But I have not played the Tactics series properly and I'm not that educated on the subject. EDIT: I should also mention that dividing by genus (and not by individual enemy) isn't bad and isn't exclusive to the Tactics series. We do it for XI. Discuss. 79.69.201.3 15:13, October 1, 2012 (UTC)
Eh. 79.69.194.184 21:26, October 9, 2012 (UTC) |
Discussion point 13 | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Point
Background The idea that recurring enemies don't get their own parent if there's a parent for the overarcing type - Grenade doesn't get a page because it's a type of Bomb, etc. And this makes sense, Bombs, Grenades, Balloons, etc, are all basically the same enemy with a different color scheme and higher stats, etc. However, boss-type variants have more weight to them. The Jumbo Cactuar for example isn't just a palette-swapped Cactuar with higher HP, it's a recurring boss, is larger than normal Cactuars, often fights differently, and is often related to some sort of subquest, like getting Cactuar as a summon. Similar instances are the Malboro Menace, Behemoth King, Abyss Worm, and I'm sure there's a couple others I'm forgetting. There are also some grey areas to consider, like Tonberries - there's usually a boss variant, but sometimes it's a Master Tonberry, other times it's the Tonberry King, so do we create one article for both, or give them each separate articles? Also the policy suggested demands at least two boss encounters - the Malboro Menace isn't always a boss, but it is sometimes, and I think that's enough. Doreiku Kuroofangu 02:02, October 17, 2012 (UTC)
I think it's a waste of time to have pages for Grenade and Balloon when Bomb serves the purpose of being a recurring-race/creature page (while also being a recurring enemy page, but it's not like we give more coverage to the Bomb on that page other than perhaps the intro-- where both Balloon and Grenade should have a short paragraph anyway (maybe it would be better to move comments about variants into their own h2, but I never wrote them like that)). Parents are supposed to give more information and if the same information is already sitting comfortably in the Bomb page. Yes, Tonberry King, yes Jumbo Cactuar. No to all other enemy names I have read above. Tonberry King and Jumbo Cactuar are unique and not just variations. Also they're not usually random encounters. Significance is why we dare cover Ultima Weapon and Omega Weapon in their own pages. Actually, I think in the past we trialed recurring bosses differently to different enemies. All we have to do is add a "if enemy is usually a boss" clause that ignores variations. 79.69.206.151 19:26, October 17, 2012 (UTC) Okay,
If you disagree based on numbers then make alternate suggestions (I don't know like, maybe you think it should be five overall appearances but three special/boss appearances or something). JBed (talk) 19:18, October 21, 2012 (UTC)
|
Additions
I think HenryA and Faethin work most in these errors: We need to have the policy on personnel be added to the ACP, and also the music policy.
I can't add anything else.
But everything in the ACP has been approved. 79.69.194.184 21:26, October 9, 2012 (UTC)
I will summarily put my quick input below. - Henryacores^ 19:30, November 25, 2012 (UTC)
Music
This point has been talked a lot among the years here. I haven't contributed to the wiki since nearly 2 months as of this post, and I stopped in the middle of a revamp to this area. If my memory doesn't fail me, I used the following criteria for creating new articles:
- Song is a Main Theme
- Song is a Main Vocal Theme
- Song is a Final Boss Theme
- Song is a Main Battle Theme
- Three exterior appeareances excluding sequels and/or <h4>'s. (e.g. An appearance on both DFF and D012/XII and RW counts as one) and appearances in compilations, but including distinct arrangements.
- Obvious importance to the game in question (i.e. as prominent as the game's Main Theme (DISSIDIA (Theme)/The Messenger))
- The 200-word clause is absolute bullshit and counter-productive.
Jimcloud also pointed, back in September, the hypothesis of creating music articles on themes derived from other, more prominent themes. I opposed this idea and suggested an approach as in Theme of CRISIS CORE, but we didn't reach a conclusion. - Henryacores^ 19:30, November 25, 2012 (UTC)
Look Henry, you may argue all you want, but the policy on creating music articles is really, really simple. Either you followed it or you didn't. The link is given but I am anyway going to paste the criteria we lay down months ago that you yourself seemed to agree to:
or
or
Notice how the policy makes no mention whatsoever to subjective concepts, such as the "obvious importance" of anything. The 200-word minimum was established in order to avoid creating two-liners that fulfilled the conditions of appearing in more than three games; most of these pointless, potential articles were caused by certain tracks included in both Dissidia games and the Itadaki games. The input we got from Scathe and Jonny on the changes I proposed, plus, again, your own input, is what resulted in the points above. The 200-word minimum is not "absolute bullshit", and failing to state why you think it is only shows that you don't really understand its purpose. | |||
The only difference being that I base the criteria I listed on the experience I've gathered over some months of work involving the entire section and the notion of what does need an article, and what is meaningless and unnotable among what I've worked on. And you are right: if I hadn't called upon increasing the number of appearances to three, your argument over pointlessness would actually be valid. Now the 200-word minimum can't be a valid criteria for article creation because it clearly evaluates the notability of the content based on the users who write about it. Liberi Fatali; Zanarkand; Dancing Mad; One-Winged Angel and Theme of Love (among several others) need articles independently of their word count and it's completely ridiculous to state otherwise. - Henryacores^ 00:34, November 26, 2012 (UTC)
"The 200-word minimum is not "absolute bullshit", and failing to state why you think it is only shows that you don't really understand its purpose."
Well, he already said why before you posted. But anyways, it should be clear to see why such a policy is unnecessary and even harmful: we don't have many new users or articles to justify limits on creation, and worshiping at the altar of policy tends to restrict contributions. As for the subjective part, it's usually pretty clear what sort of music is significant to the story. Things aren't black and white, and neither should we should try to interpret them that way ;). --Shockstorm (talk) 03:19, November 26, 2012 (UTC)
First of all, every single one of the examples you mentioned 1) can easily include way more than 200 words on their article and 2) have lyrics, so they technically fall under the "song" category. Stuff, on the other hand, like your own example back from the old topic: "The Red Wings", is not as easily handled. What can you say about "The Red Wings"? It's Cecil's theme and it appears in a bunch of games. That is not, by any stretch of the definition, a notable bit of information and it belongs in Cecil's own artcile as a sub-section, as opposed to a stand-alone article. There are other examples: mostly battle themes and tracks that were rather arbitrarily included in the Itadaki games that I cannot really remember right now. Shockstorm, I don't think I understand where you are coming from. We are not "limiting creation". We are simply defining the criteria we use to determine whether an article is notable or not. "Pretty clear" means, in the end, I could come up with arbitrary content of dubious quality and pull up the "SUBJECTIVE" card if I were told so. While agree that there are some clear-cut examples, this is not always the case, for the n-th time, as Henry's work over the past months can evidence. | |||
Actually, I think you do understand. You'd rather not admit that you're nitpicking policy instead of, you know, contributing. Which seems to happen a lot with people who get comfortable in positions of power.
And yes, more regulation will inevitably lead to less creation and contributions. That's just common sense. The question is whether it's justified or not. I'd say it's not in this case. --Shockstorm (talk) 04:48, November 26, 2012 (UTC)
This is not "more regulation". This is the policy that we have been using, basically, for the past three years. If you're accusing me of little activity on the Wiki I kindly ask you to check my contributions. I may not be as active as I use to be, but, surprise, I've grown to have some other responsibilities besides the Wiki. You're assuming stuff I have never actually said. I suspect you haven't even read the previous Music Article Policy discussion. I think you would have a point if we were talking about some huge, bulky law that impedes contributions, when we're actually dealing with a mere *two* rules to keep in mind - both aimed at maintaining a standard of quality. | |||
What you utterly fail to understand is that a subject's notability can never be measured by how many words a random editor can write about it, and adopting such a rule for any field of our scope heavily harms our coverage. I vehemently oppose the adoption of this rule anywhere on the Wiki, not just Music.
Also, this article creation policy doesn't (seem) to focus on what an article should include, but yes, in what conditions it should be created. It doesn't make any sense at all to have one of those conditions be the article size posterior to its creation. If an article covers a notable subject and it's lacking in size, then it is not deleted: it's a stub.
And the critera I used back then were sufficient and strict, where they did never not allow the creation of unnotable articles, and disregarded lyrics as important. And that can be easily seen from my contributions to the navigation template. - Henryacores^ 20:51, November 26, 2012 (UTC)
I would appreciate if you kept the ad hominem remarks out of the discussion. You can support whatever rule you like but stop saying I "fail to understand" anything because that's just being arrogant. I fail to understand nothing. Notability is, simply put, whether there is anything of relevance to say about subject. I have explained my reasoning for the 200-word minimum. You, on the other hand, have merely opposed, stating it is "bullshit" and that it "harms our coverage", but have not said specifically how or why. It is irrelevant whether the criteria you used were strict or sufficient. The fact is, there is a policy that you either followed or didn't. You are welcome to discuss changing the policy, but going straight up against it without having done so is just asking for trouble in the future. | |||
The fact that the 200-words thing being a post-article-writing check (and believed not a good idea), and the amount of words being different for those who write the articles (and also believed not a good idea)-- these are thoughts I can subscribe to as well. JBed (talk) 21:32, November 26, 2012 (UTC)
That being said, all I was really looking for was the list of policies the wiki currently follows. We can argue about the policies for many moons further, however my opinion is for the benefit of creation an article creation policy it's best to just get down the policy we have now. JBed (talk) 21:33, November 26, 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, pretty much. Unfortunately, music policy seems to attract these sorts of things, so it was fairly inevitable. They've moved from here to the IRC, so you may at the very least be thankful for that. Jimcloud 21:38, November 26, 2012 (UTC)
|
All right, the consensus we reached on the IRC channel regarding the creation of music articles is as following:
We've ditched the 200-word minimum. This is only concerning musical themes with no lyrics. The policy for musical themes with lyrics and songs is left unchanged. | |||
Okay, so I tried to add stuff about Music to the ACP, re-wording to fit in with the writing-style of the page and making a few additions. I referred to all themes/songs as "tracks", although now I realise that may not be a good idea if we handle songs with the same melody collectively. Do we? Eh, I'll let someone who is better with the terminology and understanding of the music pages make tweaks. JBed (talk) 22:20, November 26, 2012 (UTC)
Faethin that's too direct and ignores Kingdom Hearts, Revenant Wings, The After Years and XIII-2. Let me improve on that and summarize:
- Three exterior appeareances excluding appearances in compilations, but including distinct arrangements.
- If the theme appears unchanged in a game and its sequel and/or prequel, it counts as one appearance.
- Appearances in media outside the Final Fantasy series don't count.
- Theme is a Main Theme
- Theme is a Main Vocal Theme
- Theme is a Final Boss Theme
- Theme is a Main Battle Theme
I've brought justice and freedom to the FFWiki Music section. I'll go back to my cave and sleep until my beloved people need me once again. - Henryacores^ 22:27, November 26, 2012 (UTC)
Also, ILHI, yes. We treat songs with the same melody collectively. For a recent example of this see DISSIDIA (Theme). - Henryacores^ 22:28, November 26, 2012 (UTC)
Personnel
First, we need to define what personnel we want to have articles about and define the notability of a staff member inside the development of the products we cover.
So, in my opinion, there is only need a to cover the artists and developers of the content we cover, which excludes administrative and marketing staff from our scope. Of course, they have their importance on the production of the games/books/films, but it's not creative, and I see no use on pointing out whoever's the head PR or the sales manager for a certain game besides the listing of production credits.
We also have to define which studios we cover. Of course, every organization which worked for the creation of Final Fantasy content should have its own article, but we must decide if we want to make articles on people who worked for the games while associated with these organizations.
In a first approach, I can point that we should have articles for main, world map, field, battle, graphic and sound programmers; character, map, battle, field and event designers; writers; animators and modellers; producers; and artists, which include voice actors, composers, performers and arrangers, among others.
This may sound megalomaniac, but it's a gradual work. And we have most of the information on production credit sections: we don't need biographies of everyone involved. Just their names and their contribute listed on a page. - Henryacores^ 19:30, November 25, 2012 (UTC)
- Ooooh. I like this idea. Also good to see you finally in here finishing stuff off so article creation policy can be done. Jimcloud 21:38, November 26, 2012 (UTC)
So I added the Personnel, as well as adding some other out-of-universe comments. Our policy lacks a level of specificness, so I made out what I can.
For those who work on musical tracks I made comment about working on an "original track". Of course, now I realise I am excluding Leona Lewis and Susan Calloway. So I just tweaked it. Which means that if someone works on a track in the game but not in an OST then they won't get an article. My main thought goes out to excluding that classical composer President Shinra listens to.
Also if SE officially release something with a bunch of remixers/cover artists then it suggest we make a page for each one of them. JBed (talk) 22:20, November 26, 2012 (UTC)
Everything
I think that is everything. I'm not entirely sure I like the structure anymore (it seemed logical to me at the time) but in its current state it can still serve its purpose.
Move to project space? 79.69.193.179 21:40, November 29, 2012 (UTC)